K-P Hydraulics Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 15, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 138 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
K-P Hydraulics Company and United Electrical, Ra-
dio and Machine Workers of America , U.E., Peti-
tioner. Case 18-RC-10365
July 15, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On February 19, 1975, the Acting Regional Direc-
tor for Region 18 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which
he concluded that an immediate election was inap-
propriate but directed that an election be held as
soon as he determined that a substantial and repre-
sentative complement of employees was employed in
the unit. Thereafter, the Employer filed a timely re-
quest for review of the Acting Regional Director's
decision on the ground that, in directing an election
at a later time to be determined by him, he departed
from precedent. The Petitioner filed opposition to
the request for review.
On April 21, 1975, by telegraphic order, the re-
quest for review was granted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review and finds
that no question concerning representation exists at
the present time for the following reasons:
The Employer asserts that the Acting Regional Di-
rector erred in not dismissing the petition on the ba-
sis of his finding that an immediate election was in-
appropriate, citing Some Industries, Incorporated, 204
NLRB 1142 (1973); Noranda Aluminum, Inc., 186
NLRB 217 (1970); and Cramet, Inc., 112 NLRB 975
(1955). We find merit in this contention.
At the time of the hearing, February 5, 1975, the
Employer employed 40 full-time and about 8 tempo-
rary employees in the manufacture of hydraulic
jacks. In the future, the Employer plans to also man-
ufacture jack stands (to begin by summer or early fall
1975) and automobile ramps (with no projected com-
mencement date). The Employer began hiring in
April 1974 and planned to be in full production of
hydraulic jacks by November 1974. However, as of
February 1975, the Employer had not achieved that
full production goal. The Employer at the time of the
hearing had one shift, anticipated adding a second
shift of about 50 employees by October 1975, and
intended to have a third shift staffed within 30 days
thereafter. This plan would result in a total comple-
ment of about 140 employees. Also, at the time of the
hearing, the Employer was utilizing 13 job classifica-
tions, 4 of which it planned to eliminate by fall 1975.
With the addition of the second shift, 20 new job
classifications would be added: 5 classifications, to
be filled by 13 to 16 employees, were projected to be
in use within 2 to 6 months from February; 14 classi-
fications, requiring 33 to 39 employees, within 7 to 10
months; and 1 classification, to be filled by 3 em-
ployees, in 12 months. No specific plans had been
made about the third shift.
The Acting Regional Director found that as of the
time of the hearing there was not a substantial and
representative complement of employees. Normally,
where a finding is made that the requested unit is
expanding in size and/or changing in its basic char-
acter to such an extent that the present complement
of employees is not substantial and representative in
relation to that projected for the reasonably foreseea-
ble future, the Board does not direct an election to be
held at a date to be determined in the future but
dismisses the petition as untimely filed.' We see no
special circumstances to warrant the Acting Regional
Director's departure from such normal procedure in
the instant case. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petition without prejudice to the filing of a new peti-
tion at a time when a representative and substantial
complement of employees is employed.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
1 Some Industries , Inc, supra, Noranda Aluminum. Inc. supra, Cramer,
Inc., supra Cf Gordon B Irvine, 124 NLRB 217 (1959)
219 NLRB No. 20